ESPN Magazine’s Howard Bryant: insightful on sports, but prone to suffocating liberal piety when he starts talking politics. As a special treat for fans, ESPN posted online Bryant’s “The Truth” column for the upcoming September 19 NFL Preview II Issue: “Response to protest shows the power of the sports machine.” That would be the protest of infamous San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, whom Bryant predictably hailed as a hero for failing to stand for the National Anthem at a preseason game last week, citing United States “oppression” while collecting a $19 million annual salary in that same oppressive country. Bryant portrayed the quarterback, whom many criticize as hypocritical and ungrateful as well as anti-police (his workout socks featured pigs in cop hats), as “awakening” into brave dissent despite the pile-on of intimidation by the "predominantly white media."
Post-Brexit, the liberal media lashed out with myriad hysterical predictions of economic meltdown and threw around bitter accusations of xenophobia, with the New York Times leading the charge. Well, those dire predictions of crisis have not exactly panned out, but the Times is back trying to pump some life into the libel, by labeling any violent crime against any immigrant in England as Brexit-related. In Friday’s New York Times, Dan Bilefsky wrote: “Fatal Beating of Polish Man Fuels Debate Over Xenophobia in Britain.” The text box read: “Fears that the ‘Brexit’ vote has unleashed a wave of violence.” More like fear among sore losers in the press, who still can't grasp how they could have lost an election where everyone they knew voted the morally correct way.
Friday’s New York Times featured wall-to-wall scare-mongering over Donald Trump’s opposition to illegal immigration, and placed the perfectly respectable term “sanctuary cities” in scare quotes, as if was somehow out of bounds. Reporter Julia Preston, perhaps the paper’s worst offender when it comes to producing biased, pro-amnesty stories (and that's some stiff competition), struck twice in Friday’s edition. “In Immigration Enforcement Debate, a Split on the Role of the Police” featured “sanctuary cities” enclosed in unnecessary scare quotes, something the Times does with phrases popular with conservatives, like “death tax.”
The New York Times absolutely hated Donald Trump’s relatively successful (or at least gaffe-free) stop in Mexico to meet with its president, and the paper took its slightly panicky hostility out on President Enrique Peña Nieto in Thursday A1, two lead stories under the banner headline “Mexican Leader Disputes Trump On Border Wall.” Patrick Healy shared the top slot over a headline that used Mexico's President Peña Nieto to bash Trump, who used his "usual bullying tone" when he got back from Mexico, while Azam Ahmed and Elizabeth Malkin reported with snark from Mexico City: “Invitation Is Viewed as ‘Historic Error.’” (One guy said it, so it must be true.) The Times lead editorial, “Mr. Trump Plays Mexico,” also showed hostility to Peña Nieto for daring to meet with the Republican nominee for president.
New York Times economist-turned-liberal-hack-columnist Paul Krugman has a habit of accusing his political opponents not of being misguided, flat wrong, or even dumb, but actively wicked. Cruel rule is what Krugman thinks is going on in the red states of Texas and Kansas, as their limited-government approaches make them “States of Cruelty.” The text box: “Some ugly politics is local.” Krugman also spouted that it’s cruel to women to be pro-life, no matter how many baby girls might be saved, because he has made an unsubstantiated link between deaths of pregnant women in Texas and defunding Planned Parenthood abortion clinics
What does it take to make left-wing CNN contributor Van Jones sound moderate and reasonable? Have him interviewed by Ana Marie Cox of the New York Times for the paper’s Sunday Magazine: “Van Jones Can Empathize With Trump Voters.” This Sunday, Van Jones sounded more sensible than Cox when it came to respecting those with different political beliefs, jabbing at his own side to be more tolerant of Trump voters and conservatives in general.
The New York Times’ obsession with concealed-carry laws on campus in Texas continued, with reporter Dave Philipps, fresh off his celebration of a sex-toy anti-gun rally at the University of Texas in liberal Austin, conducted sober interviews with four people at UT to see how they felt about guns. Three of the four hated the idea, and their reasoning was pretty ridiculous, like the professor who claimed, "She is also worried that the presence of guns might impinge free speech by making some students too fearful to speak their minds in class. Some professors have resigned rather than teach in the environment."
The New York Times pro-Hillary campaign coverage leaves much to be desired, but the paper has been decent recently on at least one issue important to conservatives: Free speech on college campus. Saturday’s off-lead story covered the surprisingly strong welcome letter the University of Chicago sent to its incoming students: “University of Chicago Rebels Against Moves to Stifle Speech.” The text box: “Rejecting ‘trigger warnings’ and ‘safe spaces.’”
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has gotten a lot of attention with his latest, “Anne Frank Today Is a Syrian Girl.” Kristof, who fervently opposed intervention in Iraq during the Bush years, now wants to guilt America and Obama into taking sides in a Syrian civil war by comparing it to the war against Nazi Germany, as well as accepting thousands of Syrian refugees. That’s despite there being no Nazi-style genocide plan, and the war taking place in a land where America has no vital strategic interests. Add to that the concerns about refugee sexual violence that took place in Cologne and other places in Europe. In addition, Kristof’s previous callousness toward the persecution of ordinary Iraqis makes him look pretty hypocritical when he now wants America to lead the world in taking Syrian refugees.
Self-impressed with its own cultivated “weirdness,” the college town of Austin, Texas, is a blue redoubt in a red state, so it’s no surprise that some students vulgarly protested the state’s concealed-carry law, which now allows concealed handguns to be carried on campus. New York Times reporter Dave Philipps couldn’t get enough of it, celebrating the protest in Thursday’s edition: “Texas Students Wield Absurdity as a Weapon." It makes quite a change from the horrified reaction the Times has when conservative Texas A&M students mount protests.
The New York Times’ chief Hillary-following reporter Amy Chozick delivered some unfiltered Clinton campaign propaganda in Tuesday’s “'Conspiracy’ Validation Seen by Clinton Camp,” vindicating Hillary’s notorious late-90s paranoia about a “vast right-wing conspiracy” taking on the innocent, scandal-free First Couple, with Chozick defending the claim as "not entirely baseless."
Hillary Clinton evidently doesn’t actually commit scandalous or criminal behavior, she merely is pressed by questions that passively “shadow” her and “follow” her presidential campaign. That’s the tone of recent New York Times scandal coverage on Clinton’s various controveries involving her foudation and her handling of classified documents, both of which have gained new life with a big new batch of previously undisclosed emails.
While some have criticized Donald Trump’s predictions of a “rigged” election in favor of Hillary Clinton, the New York Times went inflammatory on Monday’s front page, playing the race card on the candidate by dismissing suspicions of vote fraud as just anti-black fear-mongering: “Trump, Claims of ‘Rigged’ Vote And Issues of Racial Politics.” The fretful text box: “Election law officials fear a self-fulfilling prophecy, all but ensuring fraud claims.” Reporters Maggie Haberman and Matt Flegenheimer found “alarmed” Republicans and outraged Democrats, and fanned the racial flames early and often.
So long, democracy. Larry Wilmore's Comedy Central show got cancelled. That was the dramatic message from the far-left culture magazine Salon, with a headline ripe for ridicule: “Losing ‘The Nightly Show’ matters: Larry Wilmore’s satire was crucial for our democracy,” especially "in the middle of an election cycle where many segments of our society feel totally disenfranchised, if not outright persecuted." Lest you think the headline was clickbait, the piece by Sophia A. McClennen, a professor at Penn State, face-planted right out of the starting gate with the same magnificent exaggeration: "This week saw the end of one of the most significant satire news shows in our nation’s history. "
New York Times liberal TV critic Mike Hale found every excuse for the cancellation of left-wing comic Larry Wilmore’s Comedy Central show save the obvious one. The headline flattered the failed TV host: “A Characteristically Low-Key Farewell for a Cerebral Host.” One would have to read all the way through, and very carefully, to get the vague hint that "The Nightly Show With Larry Wilmore" just may have been too unremittingly left-wing and humorless to succeed with the public.
New York Times sports/TV columnist Richard Sandomir complained (with an awkward pun) Friday that NBC was tolling “their jingo bells” with excessively pro-American coverage of the Olympics in Rio: “NBC Coverage Doesn’t Stray From Home.” The online headline was harsher: “Little Is Medal-Worthy About NBC’s Coverage of Foreign Athletes.” Of course, the United States has earned a huge haul of medals, far more than any other nation. Social media commenters pointed out it was hardly unusual for a nation’s Olympics coverage to favor their national teams and wondered why Americans weren’t allowed the same privilege.
After literally fitting up President Obama as a candidate for Mt. Rushmore (“Obama was better than we imagined, better than the body politic deserved...”) Jim Nelson, editor-in-chief of men’s fashion magazine GQ (Gentleman’s Quarterly), followed up Friday with some fashionable Hillary hagiography and a side of Trump sexism: “The Trump Campaign Is Fueled by the Fear of a Female President.” Nelson posed the question “why were his followers so drawn to that hot temper and fulminating rage?” and answered it: “...fear of a gynarchy. Rule by women."
The New York Times did its part for the Hillary Clinton campaign (and President Obama’s legacy) in Thursday’s edition, offering happy talk about lost coal jobs in Kentucky, skipping over some inconvenient facts that would cloud the pro-Democratic narrative, while another story bashing Donald Trump’s tax plan passed up a golden opportunity to revive Clinton’s infamous “dead broke” comment.
The New York Times “Interpreter” column is a recent addition to the paper’s news pages. Sold as a philosophical fact-check, it comes off as an excuse to sneak yet more liberal opinion into the paper under the guise of offering an elevated perspective on current events. Most egregious yet: Wednesday’s column by Amanda Taub, in which she goes to ludicrous lengths to wave away the problem of the threat of sexual assault by Islamic migrants and denigrate conservative critics of the assaults as she offensively compared valid concerns about Islamic refugee sexual violence and refugee attitudes toward women in general to Jim Crow and the lynching days.
Olympic judo competitor Islam El Shehaby of Egypt refused to shake hands with Or Sasson, the Israeli opponent who defeated him, after their August 12 match. Media coverage, though not widespread, was condemnatory of the Egyptian’s unsportsmanlike snub and religious hostility. Except for a post by the semi-anonymous blogger “N.P.” at the U.K.-based magazine The Economist, a magazine with an anti-Israel ideological line, which argued that “Israel’s holier-than-thou protestations, though, risk sounding shrill," and that it could have been a lot worse, referring to “the bullets that killed 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972.” Only “bullets” killed the Israeli athletes?